View Full Version : Early Israeli nuclear pre-emption is not only justified but almost mandatory.
The author of the AT article below makes a convincing argument for why a pre-emptive Israeli nuclear attack on Iran is not only justified but almost mandatory. Please read the article before you comment, and please vote in the poll.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/thinking_about_the_unthinkable_an_israeliran_nuclear_war_.html
Following the US's betrayal of Israel and its de facto detente with Iran, we cannot expect Israel to copy longstanding US doctrines of no-first-nuclear-use and preferences for conventional-weapons-only war plans. After all, both were premised (especially after the USSR's 1991 collapse) on decades of US nuclear and conventional supremacy. If there ever were an unassailable case for a small, frighteningly vulnerable nation to pre-emptively use nuclear weapons to shock, economically paralyze, and decapitate am enemy sworn to its destruction, Israel has arrived at that circumstance.
...Israel has no choice, given the radical new alignment against it that now includes the US, given reported Obama threats in 2014 to shoot down Israeli attack planes, his disclosure of Israel's nuclear secrets and its Central Asian strike-force recovery bases, and above all his agreement to help Iran protect its enrichment facilities from terrorists and cyberwarfare – i.e., from the very special-operations and cyber forces that Israel would use in desperate attempts to halt Iran's bomb.
MountainRaven
08-23-15, 21:59
"A more recent video game envisions a massive Iranian ground army marching to liberate Jerusalem."
Holy shit, that must mean that the US has been planning the genocide of Iran and Russia for over a decade!
The author stinks of Saudi oil and the military-industrial complex and is nakedly misapplying the lessons of Chamberlain and Munich.
I don't think a nuclear preemptive strike is justified, but I think Israel should do whatever it takes to make sure Iran's nuclear program is as stillborn as Iraq's super gun.
"A more recent video game envisions a massive Iranian ground army marching to liberate Jerusalem."
Holy shit, that must mean that the US has been planning the genocide of Iran and Russia for over a decade!
The author stinks of Saudi oil and the military-industrial complex and is nakedly misapplying the lessons of Chamberlain and Munich.
Did you read the entire article? Perhaps you did, and if so, read it again. Israel has very few options left on the table, of which a pre-emptive strike is the most probable to ensure the survival of Israel. Of course, the Iran apologists on M4C will never cease lambasting Israel, underscoring their antisemitism.
I don't think a nuclear preemptive strike is justified, but I think Israel should do whatever it takes to make sure Iran's nuclear program is as stillborn as Iraq's super gun.
Agree. If Israel goes the route of a nuclear pre-emptive strike they will and should loose whatever support they have from the world as a whole.
Have no issue with them bunker busting, kidnapping or assassinating their way into making sure that nuclear program fails utterly. They and everyone else needs to do what they need to protect themselves. They do need to understand that if they kick a hornets nest they may get stung.
I have never read so much mindless drivel in my life, I feel stupider for reading as much as I did.
We care about Israel why again?
Personally I think we should let the bunch of them have it out. We should stop buying oil from any of them. I don't see Iran as any worse than Saudi Arabia. The only difference is the Saudi'd play nice because they want to sell us something. I'm sure Iran would play nice too if we allowed them to sell anything.
I think we should pull all americans from the region and put all of that time and effort into non fossil fuel energy. The only thing that gives these countries power is the only we give them for oil. Oil is not the only show in town.
If we turn our back on the region soon enough they will be back to herding goats.
To answer you question directly, let Israel do anything it wants. Less warm bodies in the region is better, let them all kill each other.
crusader377
08-24-15, 09:38
First off, I think the author of the American Thinker article is batshit crazy. I think there are so many unforeseen negative consequences of a preemptive nuclear strike for convenience that I don't think anyone should ever go there.
That said, I do think Israel has the right to conventionally defend themselves against legitimate threats to their safety like any nation.
Although I do not like the Iranian regime, I do question the actual threat from Iran. For the last 15 years all of the supposed Neo-Con experts have been saying that Iran is really close to getting Nuclear weapons but they still don't have them yet. Second again the comparison to Nazi Germany is just simply fear mongering. Iran has a third rate economy which is 2% of the size of the U.S. economy and unlike the Germans, Iran really doesn't have a tradition of being militarily strong nor competent. Finally, the Mullahs in Iran are on the way out. The Iranian people want more freedom and opportunity and it is only a matter of time before the Mullahs are gone.
crusader377
08-24-15, 09:42
Personally I think we should let the bunch of them have it out. We should stop buying oil from any of them. I don't see Iran as any worse than Saudi Arabia. The only difference is the Saudi'd play nice because they want to sell us something. I'm sure Iran would play nice too if we allowed them to sell anything.
Interestingly enough, the Saudi's are funding ISIS and 15 out of the 19 terrorist on 9/11 were Saudi. Yet Saudi Arabia is an ally while Iran who is actually fighting ISIS is an enemy.
Doesn't Israel already have over 100nukes already? And how many does Iran actually have? I'm not seeing the threat,here..
ColtSeavers
08-24-15, 10:43
It's too late for Israel to do anything militarily. They said their piece and did and will continue on with their behind the scenes game, but an all out out military strike (especially solo) is simply not an option as it will galvanize everyone against them. The nuclear agreement with Iran is the nail in that coffin. The best they can do now is keep quiet and defend/react as devastatingly as possible as they have always done and cry "I Told You So!" if they are gone after.
ETA: Voted that no one is justified in military action anymore thanks to the nuclear agreement.
It's not for us to say. I'm not a big fan of pre-emptive strikes. I'm more for "speak softly, but carry a big stick" style diplomacy. My suggested course of action is to stop sending money to Israel and take the U.S. muzzle off them at the same time. If they want to risk a conventional war with Iran by conducting a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, that's on them. We just need to make it clear that Israel is our ally and that any nuke strike on Israel will result in the immediate annihilation of every living thing within theirIran's borders.
We're still the only country in the world that's used nukes on our enemies. We need to remind the Iranian leadership of that fact as often as necessary...
Pre-emptive strike on Iran by Israel is the only way for them to survive.
Let Iran drop nukes on Israel and Israel definitely will not survive.
If thugs in a parking lot declare they're going to kill you, then come at you with weapons in their hands do you pull immediately before they get there or first let them kill one or more of your loved ones before you act?
Of course, the Iran apologists on M4C will never cease lambasting Israel, underscoring their antisemitism.
Would just like to point out it isn't always a duck. I have many valid criticisms of Israel, but that doesn't equate to anti semetism.
Because of widespread antisemitism, Israel has been vehemently criticized anytime they've decidedly defended their state from those who seek its annihilation. If the United States was faced with multiple aggressors that pledged its destruction, and one or more of these aggressors did everything in their power to acquire, in secret, a nuclear weapon, do you expect the US to wait until we're hit? If you do, you're delusional. Israel is on the verge of extinction, and the use of nuclear weapons is justified. If Israel strikes Iran with a nuclear device, there will condemnation, but no one will dare counter launch.
Pre-emptive strike, yes.
Nuclear, no.
Think about the countries east of Iran, because that's where the fallout would be headed. That drags us into a war we don't need.
Because of widespread antisemitism, Israel has been vehemently criticized anytime they've decidedly defended their state from those who seek its annihilation. If the United States was faced with multiple aggressors that pledged its destruction, and one or more of these aggressors did everything in their power to acquire, in secret, a nuclear weapon, do you expect the US to wait until we're hit? If you do, you're delusional. Israel is on the verge of extinction, and the use of nuclear weapons is justified. If Israel strikes Iran with a nuclear device, there will condemnation, but no one will dare counter launch.
First of all, "antisemitism" is just Israel's race card. Any criticism is seen as antisemetic, and that's just BS. Second, if Israel nukes Iran, damned skippy there would be condemnation, and Israel's economy would go into the crapper, they would be shunned by the world, no more $ or oil. Talk about pariah? Then any number of Israel's neighbors could try to attack Israel and the world would just whistle and go about its business.
As a matter of fact, the US DOES, and HAS HAD, multiple agressors that pledge its destruction, with one or more of these aggressors doing everything in their power to acquire nuclear weapons, and the US has not once used a nuke on any one of these actors or nation-states.
Outlander Systems
08-24-15, 14:29
Although I do not like the Iranian regime, I do question the actual threat from Iran.
The threat is that they might throw a middle finger up, and start selling oil for something other than Federal Reserve Notes.
:rolleyes: Antisemitism. One can disapprove of a country without disapproving of it's predominant religion. I have a very devout Roman Catholic buddy that hates Italy.
Doc Safari
08-24-15, 15:09
It's important to make the distinction that even if a person supports the Israeli people and the right of Israel to exist as a nation, their country can still have corrupt and idiotic politicians just like the US can.
Having said that, I wonder if Israel waited too long already.
We care about Israel why again?
My thoughts exactly.
KalashniKEV
08-24-15, 16:04
Interestingly enough, the Saudi's are funding ISIS and 15 out of the 19 terrorist on 9/11 were Saudi. Yet Saudi Arabia is an ally while Iran who is actually fighting ISIS is an enemy.
THIS.
First of all, "antisemitism" is just Israel's race card. Any criticism is seen as antisemetic, and that's just BS.
...and also this.
First off, I think the author of the American Thinker article is batshit crazy.
And this.
Any strike against Iran would run directly against our foreign policy and diplomatic efforts, and would be an attack on the national interest. This would require us to rain hell upon the responsible party. Obviously Israel doesn't want that.
The simple solution to all of this is to simply end the welfare payments to Israel. When we do, they will pack it in and move out. I guarantee it.
MountainRaven
08-24-15, 16:36
Because of widespread antisemitism, Israel has been vehemently criticized anytime they've decidedly defended their state from those who seek its annihilation. If the United States was faced with multiple aggressors that pledged its destruction, and one or more of these aggressors did everything in their power to acquire, in secret, a nuclear weapon, do you expect the US to wait until we're hit? If you do, you're delusional. Israel is on the verge of extinction, and the use of nuclear weapons is justified. If Israel strikes Iran with a nuclear device, there will condemnation, but no one will dare counter launch.
What? You mean like the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea?
We sure nuked the shit out of-, wait a minute... oh, wait. That's right. We didn't.
No nation in this day and age can use nuclear weapons without committing national suicide.
The global community would completely shun them. They wouldn't be able to conduct business globally and if they can't grow enough food to sustain their population then they will starve because no nation would give them any. Nor would they get any fuel or other resources that keep a country going.
However, I fear Iran already has the bomb and they will test one shortly after the ink dries on the nuke deal.
Once they show they have nukes there isn't any sanctions or any other thing we can do to them and they will be free to do what they wish with regard to trade with other nations. They could even invade and annex parts of neighboring countries with nothing more than a stern condemnation thrown their way.
If Iran were to nuke Israel the rest pf the western world would nuke them right back.
If Israel nukes Iran the world would cut them off completely and let the descendants of Saladin take Jerusalem back.
Doc Safari
08-24-15, 16:56
No nation in this day and age can use nuclear weapons without committing national suicide.
The global community would completely shun them. They wouldn't be able to conduct business globally and if they can't grow enough food to sustain their population then they will starve because no nation would give them any. Nor would they get any fuel or other resources that keep a country going.
How about North Korea? They are already a pariah. They are already shunned by most countries in the international community. They would use a nuke under the right circumstances.
However, I fear Iran already has the bomb and they will test one shortly after the ink dries on the nuke deal.
Once they show they have nukes there isn't any sanctions or any other thing we can do to them and they will be free to do what they wish with regard to trade with other nations. They could even invade and annex parts of neighboring countries with nothing more than a stern condemnation thrown their way.
If Iran were to nuke Israel the rest pf the western world would nuke them right back.
If Israel nukes Iran the world would cut them off completely and let the descendants of Saladin take Jerusalem back.
I think Iran will try to annex Iraq to use as a forward operating base to hit Israel with conventional weapons.
Watch for the feud between the Arabs and Persians to be the real attraction. Saudi Arabia and Iran will eventually duke it out. Watch.
How about North Korea? They are already a pariah. They are already shunned by most countries in the international community. They would use a nuke under the right circumstances.
North Korea has been run by 3 bat shit insane people yet they haven't nuked South Korea or Japan. If they did China would shun them and the U.S. would rain hellfire and brimstone upon them.
The only reasons we haven't had another proxy war there is because they have nukes and China has their back.
I think Iran will try to annex Iraq to use as a forward operating base to hit Israel with conventional weapons.
Watch for the feud between the Arabs and Persians to be the real attraction. Saudi Arabia and Iran will eventually duke it out. Watch.
Israel is practically a NATO member. No nation can engage in open warfare against them without the rest of the world coming to their aid. That is the reason the rest of the Muslim world hasn't pushed them into the Mediterranean. The western world has their back and the IDF knows how to handle their shit.
There is no feud between the Arabs and the Persians, it's between Sunni and Shia Islam.
The Sunnis and the Shias have been duking it out over their goofball beliefs for centuries but the world keeps on spinnin...
The sad part is our nation and allies are going to continually be dragged into this quagmire for at least the rest of this century.
Because of widespread antisemitism, Israel has been vehemently criticized anytime they've decidedly defended their state from those who seek its annihilation. If the United States was faced with multiple aggressors that pledged its destruction, and one or more of these aggressors did everything in their power to acquire, in secret, a nuclear weapon, do you expect the US to wait until we're hit? If you do, you're delusional. Israel is on the verge of extinction, and the use of nuclear weapons is justified. If Israel strikes Iran with a nuclear device, there will condemnation, but no one will dare counter launch.
As I said, I have many VALID criticisms. The right to defend themselves isn't one of them. I mostly object to US tax dollars essentially being gifted to Israel in foreign aid, although this hasn't been as much of an issue since we started trying to fix things in Iraq. I have the same problem with US tax dollars going to Afghanistan, Iraq and other places in the form of foreign aid.
I personally don't care when Israel decides to whack key leaders of Hamas and things of that nature. I just wish they were a bit more careful when it came to collateral damage. Car bombs aren't exactly surgical and indiscriminate death is something the US and our allies should try not to practice.
What? You mean like the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea?
We sure nuked the shit out of-, wait a minute... oh, wait. That's right. We didn't.
Your analogies are not applicable. Iran has been found to be directly responsible for a large number of the missile attacks against Israel, courtesy of Hezbollah, Iran's proxy in Lebanon/Syria. Israel is completely justified to use all means possible to end the lives of those responsible, including striking with tactical nuclear weapons. Antisemitism is at the root of the cause of the conflict.
Did you read the entire article? Perhaps you did, and if so, read it again. Israel has very few options left on the table, of which a pre-emptive strike is the most probable to ensure the survival of Israel. Of course, the Iran apologists on M4C will never cease lambasting Israel, underscoring their antisemitism.
Israel doesn't really have this 'option' if you're talking about a nuclear first strike on a non-nuclear state. It isn't anti-semitism to insist that a nuclear power and non NPT signee refrain from destroying another country to maintain its nuclear hegemony. IF they do this, they will have proven themselves far more dangerous than Iran is likely to ever be.
What are we supposed to do then? Nuke Israel? Give them more money?
Your analogies are not applicable. Iran has been found to be directly responsible for a large number of the missile attacks against Israel, courtesy of Hezbollah, Iran's proxy in Lebanon/Syria. Israel is completely justified to use all means possible to end the lives of those responsible, including striking with tactical nuclear weapons. Antisemitism is at the root of the cause of the conflict.
That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. You're just like the crazies we keep hearing about that are running the Iranian govt., except that they don't say things like this and you actually do. Let's hope that the Israeli's are more rational and accountable than you expect them to be.
MountainRaven
08-24-15, 22:11
Your analogies are not applicable. Iran has been found to be directly responsible for a large number of the missile attacks against Israel, courtesy of Hezbollah, Iran's proxy in Lebanon/Syria. Israel is completely justified to use all means possible to end the lives of those responsible, including striking with tactical nuclear weapons. Antisemitism is at the root of the cause of the conflict.
Yeah, I guess the Soviets and Chinese didn't kill any Americans through their funding, training, and advising of terrorists and terrorism in Europe, South and Central America, Southeast Asia, Africa, plus supporting communist and communist-leaning state and non-state actors in Vietnam, Korea, Cuba... how much of the explosives used by Hezbollah to kill Marines in Lebanon was made in a Warsaw Pact country? How many of the AKs that Iran has provided to Hezbollah say, "Made in USSR/Russia," or, "Made in PRC," and were sold knowing that there was a high degree of likelihood, even probability that they would end up in Lebanon or Iraq?
How many of the AK-103s Russia has sold and licensed to Venezuela have or will end up in the hands of narco terrorists in Columbia and Mexico?
crusader377
08-24-15, 23:17
Your analogies are not applicable. Iran has been found to be directly responsible for a large number of the missile attacks against Israel, courtesy of Hezbollah, Iran's proxy in Lebanon/Syria. Israel is completely justified to use all means possible to end the lives of those responsible, including striking with tactical nuclear weapons. Antisemitism is at the root of the cause of the conflict.
If you think Anti-Semitism is a problem now, what do you think would happen if Israel preemptively used nuclear weapons against Iran? Israel would loss any remaining morale high ground and would become a pariah nation overnight. Its reputation on the world stage would probably be worse than North Korea. It would take generations for Israel to recover any goodwill from anywhere in the world.
That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. You're just like the crazies we keep hearing about that are running the Iranian govt., except that they don't say things like this and you actually do. Let's hope that the Israeli's are more rational and accountable than you expect them to be.
While it's specifically true that Iran doesn't advocate using it's nuclear weapons arsenal to destroy Israel, that is only because they don't have a nuclear weapons arsenal yet, or at least one they are willing to mention.
However, and this is a big one, they ROUTINELY call for the destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews all of the time...constantly. You are really splitting hairs.
http://www.catholic.org/news/international/middle_east/story.php?id=44676
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is calling for the death of all Jews and the destruction of Israel. On the Web site, called Alef, Khamenei says the opportunity must not be lost to remove "this corrupting material. It is a "'jurisprudential justification' to kill all the Jews and annihilate Israel, and in that, the Islamic government of Iran must take the helm."
That was in 2012.
MountainRaven
08-25-15, 00:10
I imagine that Iran will stop calling for the destruction of Israel when the GOP stops courting the religious right.
Iran, like the GOP, knows that there is a certain audience they need to cater to, or they lose a good portion of their power. In Iran's case, I imagine that it might be all of its power in the region beyond its own borders. When that happens certain groups that might appear moderate by comparison to ISIS may decide that they would rather side with ISIS than with an Iran that might be getting a little too pally-pally with Israel. Especially when certain of those groups, like Hezbollah and Hamas, have lost many of their fighters to Israeli bullets and bombs.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-25-15, 01:08
Middle Eastern Thirty Years War, but with nuclear weapons so it only takes a few weeks. Israel has always been a side show. If the Arabs wanted to help the Palestinians they would have used them instead of Indians in the UAE.
It's all George Bush's fault anyways. Which is like blaming Lincoln for Jim Crow.
I imagine that Iran will stop calling for the destruction of Israel when the GOP stops courting the religious right.
Iran, like the GOP, knows that there is a certain audience they need to cater to, or they lose a good portion of their power. In Iran's case, I imagine that it might be all of its power in the region beyond its own borders. When that happens certain groups that might appear moderate by comparison to ISIS may decide that they would rather side with ISIS than with an Iran that might be getting a little too pally-pally with Israel. Especially when certain of those groups, like Hezbollah and Hamas, have lost many of their fighters to Israeli bullets and bombs.
Even if the GOP did that, the reality is there is a significant percentage of our population that consider themselves the religious right. They exist in large numbers. Thankfully they aren't radicals will to commit in acts of terrorism or every abortion clinic in the country would explode overnight.
And just like the religious right actually exists in large numbers of the population, in Iran, there is a significant percentage of our population that believes Israel should be destroyed and jews exterminated. It is a large enough representation that the leadership panders to them. The problem is the leadership itself strongly holds these values.
Imagine if Jerry Falwell actually became President and implemented his "moral majority" vision of America. It would be like nothing we'd ever seen before and the loss of some rights would be staggering. But we still wouldn't be an actual theocracy, and we still wouldn't be as bad as Iran on their best day.
There simply isn't any comparing the two.
When US women are attacked for not wearing head scarves, when we have actual witch trials again, when women are raped and then arrested for being outside without an escort and when half the population says "Death to the Jews" and actually means it, then we will be close to Iran but still a bit off.
Now certainly Iran isn't the only country like this, Saudi is every bit as bad - possibly worse. But nobody is talking about making Saudi Arabia a nuclear power.
If you think Anti-Semitism is a problem now, what do you think would happen if Israel preemptively used nuclear weapons against Iran? Israel would loss any remaining morale high ground and would become a pariah nation overnight. Its reputation on the world stage would probably be worse than North Korea. It would take generations for Israel to recover any goodwill from anywhere in the world.
If there would be an Israel left. If Israel nuked Iran, the US would cut off money, their economy would cease to exist, every country would turn its back, giving tacit approval for every anti-Israel group, nation, and state to attack. Logically, how could it be otherwise? Any country supporting Israel after a nuking would also be a pariah and tossed in the same camp and suffer the effects of an angry world. There would be no sympathy.
While it's specifically true that Iran doesn't advocate using it's nuclear weapons arsenal to destroy Israel, that is only because they don't have a nuclear weapons arsenal yet, or at least one they are willing to mention.
However, and this is a big one, they ROUTINELY call for the destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews all of the time...constantly. You are really splitting hairs.
http://www.catholic.org/news/international/middle_east/story.php?id=44676
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is calling for the death of all Jews and the destruction of Israel. On the Web site, called Alef, Khamenei says the opportunity must not be lost to remove "this corrupting material. It is a "'jurisprudential justification' to kill all the Jews and annihilate Israel, and in that, the Islamic government of Iran must take the helm."
That was in 2012.
Catholic Online?
In order to attack Iran, the article says, Israel needs the approval and assistance of America, and under the current passive climate in the United States, the opportunity must not be lost to wipe out Israel before it attacks Iran.
This was also in the 'article'. This is not a new source. Many sources do not agree with these interpretations, and the govt. of Iran is fairly careful where they publicly and officially draw the line. While I respect that you seem to have a balanced approach to limitations of the use of force and the inherent difficulty justifying it, I think your sources for this claim are very weak.
Someone in their country, trying to prove that the U.S. is hell bent on enabling the Israelis to kill all 80 million of their citizens, would not have much difficulty finding websites and opinions- some from people writing big checks to the GOP- that seem to support this view and there would be no need for third hand accounts of speeches from years ago. Does this make it accurate? I hope to hell not.
https://www.algemeiner.com/2015/08/25/senior-iran-official-no-change-in-stance-on-israel-which-should-be-annihilated/
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran/Israel-should-be-annihilated-Iranian-official-says-413212
"Our positions against the usurper Zionist regime have not changed at all; Israel should be annihilated and this is our ultimate slogan," the Iranian Parliament Speaker's Adviser for International Affairs Hossein Sheikholeslam was quoted as saying by Iran's Fars news agency.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-25-15, 18:43
I love the idea that Iran is just a misunderstood country full of people that love us but everyone in Saudi Arabia is evil. Or the sentiment that it is now written into our Constituion that we have to defend Iran. This treaty/agreement is a sham all around by all the parties.
We also said that we would defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine, so Kev, we should have rained holy hell on Russia, right?
Catholic Online?
Typical. If you don't like the message, try and impeach the source.
But the speech, including the comments, were sourced on that webpage, and numerous others by the way. I just used that one because anything from an Israeli source would be dismissed by you immediately. I guess catholics are part of the global jewish conspiracy as well.
If you seriously do not understand that as recently as 2012 (before Iran decided to pretend to be moderate) that a huge percentage of the population and the current leadership were calling for the destruction of Israel and the death of all jews then you might as well go all the way and claim the holocaust never happened. Might as well, the Iranians did that too.
"Written into our constitution that we have to defend Iran?"
Even in a game of gotcha politics against John Kerry, where Rubio betrayed just how tenuous his grasp is on foreign policy, it was clearly indicated that our alliances have not changed, we are helping to secure what nuclear program the deal allows, and no, we are not obligated to 'defend Iran'.
Come on! That distortion is the second most ridiculous thing I've heard in this thread.
Typical. If you don't like the message, try and impeach the source.
But the speech, including the comments, were sourced on that webpage, and numerous others by the way. I just used that one because anything from an Israeli source would be dismissed by you immediately. I guess catholics are part of the global jewish conspiracy as well.
If you seriously do not understand that as recently as 2012 (before Iran decided to pretend to be moderate) that a huge percentage of the population and the current leadership were calling for the destruction of Israel and the death of all jews then you might as well go all the way and claim the holocaust never happened. Might as well, the Iranians did that too.
Your source is a website provided for people who have already decided what their position is to do a quick google search, find a link and throw some crap into an argument that otherwise might be serious.
Perhaps you should examine disclaimers like Allegedly Holy leader says nation has 'jurisprudential justification' to kill Jews, annihilate Israel contained at the top of the article. Even your source has the integrity to use the word allegedly, which is prudent when your entire premise is paraphrased from a website, called Alef.
It was a nice touch to hurl baseless accusations and ridiculous non-sequitors about my opinions on a great many things unrelated to the business of preventing another large, counterproductive 'preventative' war in the ME- and, in particular, preventing the United States to fight one at the behest of a client state which happens to be a regional nuclear power.
If I were you, I'd be more worried about how the dog keeps getting wagged so deftly- how such wild conjecture backed up by so little information and proof has become accepted so easily. You should have some perspective, of course.
Eurodriver
08-25-15, 20:02
I can't believe there are 16 people on this forum who advocate nuclear holocaust perpetrated by a nation created because of their own holocaust.
Mandatory, pre-emptive nuclear strike? Holy shit...
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-25-15, 20:34
Mandatory, pre-emptive nuclear strike? Holy shit...
Like its a prerequisite course for advanced class..
Glowing Shiite more than divine dung. ;)
Averageman
08-25-15, 20:42
I can't believe there are 16 people on this forum who advocate nuclear holocaust perpetrated by a nation created because of their own holocaust.
Mandatory, pre-emptive nuclear strike? Holy shit...
I dont see it any differently than someone threatening to shoot you on sight.
Iran has been rattling this same crap for years "Death to Israel", well now they have or will soon have the bomb. If they take no action, they are screwed,
No, I'm not one of the sixteen, but what would you want them to do? I guess we could loan them John Kerry to negotiate this for them. Israel may want him to leave his bicycle home though.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-25-15, 20:49
"Written into our constitution that we have to defend Iran?"
Even in a game of gotcha politics against John Kerry, where Rubio betrayed just how tenuous his grasp is on foreign policy, it was clearly indicated that our alliances have not changed, we are helping to secure what nuclear program the deal allows, and no, we are not obligated to 'defend Iran'.
Come on! That distortion is the second most ridiculous thing I've heard in this thread.
My bad. Kerry's odd way of answering things indirectly can leave things open to interpretation when he thinks he's being clear. He seems to think very utterance might end up being his Gettysberg address. Why he couldn't say "we are not obligated to protect Iran" is beyond me. I actually pity the Iranians who had to negotiate with him.
Your source is a website provided for people who have already decided what their position is to do a quick google search, find a link and throw some crap into an argument that otherwise might be serious.
Perhaps you should examine disclaimers like Allegedly Holy leader says nation has 'jurisprudential justification' to kill Jews, annihilate Israel contained at the top of the article. Even your source has the integrity to use the word allegedly, which is prudent when your entire premise is paraphrased from a website, called Alef.
It was a nice touch to hurl baseless accusations and ridiculous non-sequitors about my opinions on a great many things unrelated to the business of preventing another large, counterproductive 'preventative' war in the ME- and, in particular, preventing the United States to fight one at the behest of a client state which happens to be a regional nuclear power.
If I were you, I'd be more worried about how the dog keeps getting wagged so deftly- how such wild conjecture backed up by so little information and proof has become accepted so easily. You should have some perspective, of course.
Again, if you can't find acceptable source material, I can't help you. It's not like this stuff is hard to find or secret in any way.
Funny how you believe the Iranian narrative with no problem, but everything else is a conspiracy.
At any rate, done wasting my time.
MountainRaven
08-25-15, 22:04
Even if the GOP did that, the reality is there is a significant percentage of our population that consider themselves the religious right. They exist in large numbers. Thankfully they aren't radicals will to commit in acts of terrorism or every abortion clinic in the country would explode overnight.
And just like the religious right actually exists in large numbers of the population, in Iran, there is a significant percentage of our population that believes Israel should be destroyed and jews exterminated. It is a large enough representation that the leadership panders to them. The problem is the leadership itself strongly holds these values.
Imagine if Jerry Falwell actually became President and implemented his "moral majority" vision of America. It would be like nothing we'd ever seen before and the loss of some rights would be staggering. But we still wouldn't be an actual theocracy, and we still wouldn't be as bad as Iran on their best day.
There simply isn't any comparing the two.
When US women are attacked for not wearing head scarves, when we have actual witch trials again, when women are raped and then arrested for being outside without an escort and when half the population says "Death to the Jews" and actually means it, then we will be close to Iran but still a bit off.
Now certainly Iran isn't the only country like this, Saudi is every bit as bad - possibly worse. But nobody is talking about making Saudi Arabia a nuclear power.
It's a pity Bush isn't still in office. I'm sure that he'd arrange to covertly transfer some nuclear weapons to the Kingdom of Saud, if only the king would ask.
I have never read so much mindless drivel in my life, I feel stupider for reading as much as I did.
We care about Israel why again?
Personally I think we should let the bunch of them have it out. We should stop buying oil from any of them. I don't see Iran as any worse than Saudi Arabia. The only difference is the Saudi'd play nice because they want to sell us something. I'm sure Iran would play nice too if we allowed them to sell anything.
I think we should pull all americans from the region and put all of that time and effort into non fossil fuel energy. The only thing that gives these countries power is the only we give them for oil. Oil is not the only show in town.
If we turn our back on the region soon enough they will be back to herding goats.
To answer you question directly, let Israel do anything it wants. Less warm bodies in the region is better, let them all kill each other.
1) Well, we "care" about Israel for similar reasons that we "care" about other (although not all) allies. Among these reasons are common interests, compatible ideologies, cultures, historically established relationships, etc.
2) As much as I wish that the savages in that region would go back to herding goats if we turned our back on them, the fact is that they wouldn't because other countries would not turn their backs on an oil-rich region like that. The Chinese and Russians are not new to the whole sponsoring oil-rich tyrant thing.
Interestingly enough, the Saudi's are funding ISIS and 15 out of the 19 terrorist on 9/11 were Saudi. Yet Saudi Arabia is an ally while Iran who is actually fighting ISIS is an enemy.
No argument there. Saudi Arabia is the most toxic problem in that region, and probably the world.
Doesn't Israel already have over 100nukes already? And how many does Iran actually have? I'm not seeing the threat,here..
Capacity does not equal threat. By the logic in your post, an anti-gunner would similarly reason that someone who owns one, or several AR-15's is more of a threat than a repeat offender rapist who does not own any guns.
First of all, "antisemitism" is just Israel's race card. Any criticism is seen as antisemetic, and that's just BS. Second, if Israel nukes Iran, damned skippy there would be condemnation, and Israel's economy would go into the crapper, they would be shunned by the world, no more $ or oil. Talk about pariah? Then any number of Israel's neighbors could try to attack Israel and the world would just whistle and go about its business.
As a matter of fact, the US DOES, and HAS HAD, multiple agressors that pledge its destruction, with one or more of these aggressors doing everything in their power to acquire nuclear weapons, and the US has not once used a nuke on any one of these actors or nation-states.
Except that the incessant attacks on Israel are, in fact, motivated by anti-semitism, usually in the form of Islamist supremacy. All of their neighbors have attacked them in recent history, and continue to do so either overtly or covertly on a daily basis.
As for the last part of your post, that is not entirely correct. The US has used nuclear weapons, and justifiably so, against Japan. The relevant thing to note here is that Japan was an especially dangerous threat due to the religious, fanatical zeal of its followers/citizens. The similarity to the followers of Islam is important.
:rolleyes: Antisemitism. One can disapprove of a country without disapproving of it's predominant religion. I have a very devout Roman Catholic buddy that hates Italy.
That is true. However, to characterize people's intense burning hatred of Israel, and Jews, as "disapproval" does not do justice to reality.
Your Roman Catholic buddy might "hate" Italy, but would he be willing to die, and/or send his children off to die in the quest to wipe Italy off the face of the Earth? I am guessing probably not.
What? You mean like the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea?
We sure nuked the shit out of-, wait a minute... oh, wait. That's right. We didn't.
See Japan.
Part of the reason we didn't nuke the above listed places was that either they had nuclear weapons protecting them, or had close allies with those weapons.
North Korea has been run by 3 bat shit insane people yet they haven't nuked South Korea or Japan. If they did China would shun them and the U.S. would rain hellfire and brimstone upon them.
The only reasons we haven't had another proxy war there is because they have nukes and China has their back.
Exactly, but I wager that a significant factor in us not bombing the crap out of them (at least conventionally) is because of China. No China, and we would have bombed them.
Israel is practically a NATO member. No nation can engage in open warfare against them without the rest of the world coming to their aid. That is the reason the rest of the Muslim world hasn't pushed them into the Mediterranean. The western world has their back and the IDF knows how to handle their shit.
There is no feud between the Arabs and the Persians, it's between Sunni and Shia Islam.
The Sunnis and the Shias have been duking it out over their goofball beliefs for centuries but the world keeps on spinnin...
The sad part is our nation and allies are going to continually be dragged into this quagmire for at least the rest of this century.
Nations engage in open warfare against Israel on a daily basis. Heck, NATO was around during the Six Day and Yom Kippur Wars. That didn't seem to stop all the Arab Islamofascists from attacking.
In the short run, yes we should let the Shias and the Sunnis wear each other down. In the long run, we should destroy both of those.
Your analogies are not applicable. Iran has been found to be directly responsible for a large number of the missile attacks against Israel, courtesy of Hezbollah, Iran's proxy in Lebanon/Syria. Israel is completely justified to use all means possible to end the lives of those responsible, including striking with tactical nuclear weapons. Antisemitism is at the root of the cause of the conflict.
Exactly.
Yeah, I guess the Soviets and Chinese didn't kill any Americans through their funding, training, and advising of terrorists and terrorism in Europe, South and Central America, Southeast Asia, Africa, plus supporting communist and communist-leaning state and non-state actors in Vietnam, Korea, Cuba... how much of the explosives used by Hezbollah to kill Marines in Lebanon was made in a Warsaw Pact country? How many of the AKs that Iran has provided to Hezbollah say, "Made in USSR/Russia," or, "Made in PRC," and were sold knowing that there was a high degree of likelihood, even probability that they would end up in Lebanon or Iraq?
How many of the AK-103s Russia has sold and licensed to Venezuela have or will end up in the hands of narco terrorists in Columbia and Mexico?
As I stated above, because we didn't stop the Soviet Union and China from killing tens of millions of people doesn't mean that we shouldn't do so to Iran.
I can't believe there are 16 people on this forum who advocate nuclear holocaust perpetrated by a nation created because of their own holocaust.
Mandatory, pre-emptive nuclear strike? Holy shit...
While I would be in favor of numerous conventional strikes, I also can't believe that there are 26 people on this board who think that neither Israel nor the US is justified to pre-emptively strike Iran. I guess we should just let them acquire nuclear capability, and hope they play nice.
Nations engage in open warfare against Israel on a daily basis. Heck, NATO was around during the Six Day and Yom Kippur Wars. That didn't seem to stop all the Arab Islamofascists from attacking.
In the short run, yes we should let the Shias and the Sunnis wear each other down. In the long run, we should destroy both of those.
No they don't. They engage in proxy warfare via terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. No nation in the region can send their full military might against Israel without being met by an overwhelming coalition force of western nations, the majority of which would be NATO members.
And we had Israel's back during both the Six Day and Yom Kippur wars keeping them well supplied so they could handle their shit, which they did because neither war lasted a full month.
MountainRaven
08-25-15, 23:46
See Japan.
Part of the reason we didn't nuke the above listed places was that either they had nuclear weapons protecting them, or had close allies with those weapons.
The only country that had nukes in 1949 was the US. In 1950 we - and the entirety of the remainder of the UN - were, in effect, at war with the Soviet Union by way of Korea.
And yet... no nukes. No nukes in Korea, not even when UN forces were threatened with rout. No nukes in China, whose forces led the effort that nearly ended the war in 1950. No nukes in Russia who was provided both Korea and China with weapons and aircraft - while the Soviets possessed an extremely limited ability to deliver their paltry nuclear arsenal.
As I stated above, because we didn't stop the Soviet Union and China from killing tens of millions of people doesn't mean that we shouldn't do so to Iran.
Then, by all means, be my guest: Go and stop Iran from getting a nuke. But leave me and mine out of it.
While I would be in favor of numerous conventional strikes, I also can't believe that there are 26 people on this board who think that neither Israel nor the US is justified to pre-emptively strike Iran. I guess we should just let them acquire nuclear capability, and hope they play nice.
I trust you'll be the first man in the first aircraft to drop the first bomb, the first man to set foot on Iranian soil, and the last man to leave: I'd recommend you invest in land there, though, as you will be there for a couple decades and your children and your children's children will still be fighting.
No they don't. They engage in proxy warfare via terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. No nation in the region can send their full military might against Israel without being met by an overwhelming coalition force of western nations, the majority of which would be NATO members.
And we had Israel's back during both the Six Day and Yom Kippur wars keeping them well supplied so they could handle their shit, which they did because neither war lasted a full month.
Israel is not a NATO ally and does not and will not enjoy the support of NATO.
They may enjoy the support of certain NATO members, such as the US and UK, but not the whole organization. And such support will be limited - as it always has been - to arms, ammunition, and intelligence.
Israel is not a NATO ally and does not and will not enjoy the support of NATO.
They may enjoy the support of certain NATO members, such as the US and UK, but not the whole organization. And such support will be limited - as it always has been - to arms, ammunition, and intelligence.
Yes I know Israel is not a NATO member.
I'm saying that if every Muslim nation in the ME were to openly attack Israel in a full scale war the U.S. and her allies many of whom are NATO members would come to their aid.
It's a pity Bush isn't still in office. I'm sure that he'd arrange to covertly transfer some nuclear weapons to the Kingdom of Saud, if only the king would ask.
In case it wasn't perfectly clear, Saudi Arabia with nuclear weapons would be a disaster as well. This is one of the reasons we shouldn't permit Iran to have them. It would tip the Sunni / Shia power balance out of whack and Saudi would all but demand to become a nuclear player on equal terms and would put forth the same arguments for nuclear development as Iran.
And if Saudi Arabia and Iran become nuclear players, then we will be in a world of shit and will feel foolish for being afraid of the Russians during the cold war.
It baffles me that anyone (and I don't mean you) could view any Islamic theocracy as anything other than insane. That the same people would then criticize Israel for being extremist is laughable.
KalashniKEV
08-26-15, 08:32
We also said that we would defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine, so Kev, we should have rained holy hell on Russia, right?
Yes.
Not because I say so, but because we signed the Budapest Memorandum that obligated us to protect the territorial and political integrity of Ukraine if-they-would-only-disarm.
It wasn't a secret, and Putin was very conscious of this. The war didn't explode overnight, but was a slow buildup.
He wanted to see if we would honor our word- we, as Americans, do not.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-26-15, 08:50
Yes.
Not because I say so, but because we signed the Budapest Memorandum that obligated us to protect the territorial and political integrity of Ukraine if-they-would-only-disarm.
It wasn't a secret, and Putin was very conscious of this. The war didn't explode overnight, but was a slow buildup.
He wanted to see if we would honor our word- we, as Americans, do not.
Don't be so hard on yourself ;)
We will pretty much always put off till tomorrow what we can bomb today. I understand the sentiment, but I'd rather not delude myself into thinking that we are doing it because we think its the best long term idea.
Iran knows that they can do pretty much anything but make a tv show called "A-bomb for the Mullah Guy" and no one will do anything.
The problem is that you signal like this and people start to believe you. Hitler didn't think that the UK would come to the aid of Poland because they hadn't done anything up till then.
KalashniKEV
08-26-15, 10:24
The problem is that you signal like this and people start to believe you. Hitler didn't think that the UK would come to the aid of Poland because they hadn't done anything up till then.
Godwin's Law in effect.
...and if we make the Nazis ISIS (a much better analogy- I'm we all agree) then I guess PMF/HaS would be us... and Qasem Soleimani would be Patton, right?
Who would Israel be? Italy?
Aaaaaanyway... if we're going to fail to honor our sworn commitments in favor of the national interest, I'm actually cool with it.
Let's not then act against the national interest in the name of a false ally.
Only the national interest counts.
IF, Iran ever eliminated Israel, the next step would be all out sectarian war between the Shia and Sunni covering the entire region. With no immediate common enemy in the region, they'd have to fall upon themselves. Their thirst for blood will never be slaked.
KalashniKEV
08-26-15, 12:45
...the next step would be all out sectarian war between the Shia and Sunni covering the entire region.
Do you like... not get the news???
https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/55799b73ecad044b2349d052-1200-1715/rtr4vnmq%20%281%29.jpg
https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11692520_384035961790631_4487664221763620758_n.jpg?oh=9ee703a25fc37094fdd15e1d79a2ea12&oe=566631FF
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2014/06/ISIS%20envisioned%20boundaries_0.jpg
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-26-15, 12:51
Godwin's Law in effect.
You are incorrectly using Goodwin's law. That is not a hyperbolic reference to Nazis or Hitler. England didn't care about Poland, or else it would have declared war on Russia also. Too strong of a German state went against the English strategy of a balance of power on the european continent that stretched back to the 16th century. I know you know that, a lot of people here know that so I didn't waste my time explaining it. You can push counties and they won't react until, well, they actually do. Those miscalculations actually sometimes lead to the nastiest wars. My point was that the perception that we will not act militarily emboldens the Iranians because they think that we won't act and won't let Israel act. With nuclear weapons involved, that may be a very costly mistake.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Do you like... not get the news???
https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/55799b73ecad044b2349d052-1200-1715/rtr4vnmq%20%281%29.jpg
https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11692520_384035961790631_4487664221763620758_n.jpg?oh=9ee703a25fc37094fdd15e1d79a2ea12&oe=566631FF
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2014/06/ISIS%20envisioned%20boundaries_0.jpg
Yes, but imagine what's happening today on a tenfold level.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-31-15, 00:48
My 8 year old daughter had a nightmare so bad last night she ended up in our room for the first time in her life. She dreamt that the sun came down and touched the earth and then started rolling around the whole planet.
I'll have her pick some lotto numbers to test her predictive ability. If you don't hear from me again, worry.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.